The Thousand Year Reign of Christ on the Earth

[Jope]

Let’s focus on Romans 11.

Paul describes a tree containing two types of branches. The natural branches represent the Jews. The wild branches represent the Gentiles. Some natural branches (Jews) are cut off and are replaced by wild branches (Gentiles)

What does this tree represent?

It represents the “Children of the promise” from chapter 9 and contains both Jews and Gentiles.

There are not two trees, one for Jews and one for Gentiles. There is one tree containing both Jews and Gentiles.

What does this mean?

Peace to you

The root is Abraham. The branches are not the root though, even though they are connected to the root, and derive their sustenance from it.

Jesus was Jewish, and since the body of Christ is one flesh with Him (Eph 5:30-32), the Church is connected to Israel (see also Eph 2:12) but the Church and Israel are distinct.

 

[canadyjd]

I think it unsound to base a whole system of doctrine on an interpretation of one parable, especially when numerous other Scriptures disagree with the interpretation of the parable.

The divine method is to teach plainly, and then use parables to help understanding of the initial plain teaching.

So, you understand what the passage says, but dismiss it based on your interpretation of other passages?

Do you not seek to reconcile the passages that are contrary to your belief system?

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

The root is Abraham. The branches are not the root though, even though they are connected to the root, and derive their sustenance from it.

Jesus was Jewish, and since the body of Christ is one flesh with Him (Eph 5:30-32), the Church is connected to Israel (see also Eph 2:12) but the Church and Israel are distinct.

I disagree. Paul states on several occasions there is no distinction between Jew and Gentiles.

Ephesians 1 clearly states both groups have been made into “one new man” by the cross of Christ. Both groups are bound together by God Holy Spirit. That truth cannot be undone.

Ephesians also tells us the OT Law has been abolished. Part of dispensation theory is the restoration of the temple and the sacrifices. This is clearly contrary the God’s word.

There is literally no passage of scripture that I have read that states Jesus will reign on the earth for 1000 years. I have already explained the misunderstanding of Revelation 20, where the faithful saints are promised to reign with Christ for 1000 years. Jesus reigns in Heaven.

Peace to you

 

[Jope]

I disagree. Paul states on several occasions there is no distinction between Jew and Gentiles.

You're mixing up terms. I have repeatedly stated the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church are separate. I have also stated numerous times that those members of the Church, forsake their former Jewish or Gentile heritage. When Paul states there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Church, he is talking about the Church, which is separate from Jew and Gentile who do not believe on Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

Here, let me repeat myself a number of times so that you will finally read what I say, so that I can save repeating myself in the future:

You're mixing up terms. I have repeatedly stated the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church are separate. I have also stated numerous times that those members of the Church, forsake their former Jewish or Gentile heritage. When Paul states there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Church, he is talking about the Church, which is separate from Jew and Gentile who do not believe on Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

You're mixing up terms. I have repeatedly stated the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church are separate. I have also stated numerous times that those members of the Church, forsake their former Jewish or Gentile heritage. When Paul states there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Church, he is talking about the Church, which is separate from Jew and Gentile who do not believe on Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

You're mixing up terms. I have repeatedly stated the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church are separate. I have also stated numerous times that those members of the Church, forsake their former Jewish or Gentile heritage. When Paul states there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Church, he is talking about the Church, which is separate from Jew and Gentile who do not believe on Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

You're mixing up terms. I have repeatedly stated the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church are separate. I have also stated numerous times that those members of the Church, forsake their former Jewish or Gentile heritage. When Paul states there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Church, he is talking about the Church, which is separate from Jew and Gentile who do not believe on Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

Ephesians also tells us the OT Law has been abolished. Part of dispensation theory is the restoration of the temple and the sacrifices. This is clearly contrary the God’s word.

You're mixing up terms. I have repeatedly stated the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church are separate. I have also stated numerous times that those members of the Church, forsake their former Jewish or Gentile heritage. When Paul states there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Church, he is talking about the Church, which is separate from Jew and Gentile who do not believe on Jesus' death burial and resurrection. I'll add another sentence or two here: Matthew 5:17-18 shows us that, before the new heaven and earth, the law of Moses will be fulfilled. This cannot apply to the Church, who are free from the law of Moses. This must apply to Israel. The Olivet Discourse's mention of the future fulfillment of Daniel (Mt 24:15), observance of the sabbath (Mt 24:20), and return to earthly Jerusalem (Mt 24:30-31; 25:31; Zech. 6:13; 14:4ff; Acts 15:16; Amos 9:11-12; etc.) also shows that the Jewish law and prophets will be given future consideration before Jesus returns. Not to mention that 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 shows that the temple will be set up when Jesus returns.

You're mixing up terms. I have repeatedly stated the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church are separate. I have also stated numerous times that those members of the Church, forsake their former Jewish or Gentile heritage. When Paul states there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Church, he is talking about the Church, which is separate from Jew and Gentile who do not believe on Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

You're mixing up terms. I have repeatedly stated the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church are separate. I have also stated numerous times that those members of the Church, forsake their former Jewish or Gentile heritage. When Paul states there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Church, he is talking about the Church, which is separate from Jew and Gentile who do not believe on Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

Regarding the teaching of the redemption of Israel separate from the Church, maybe you can give a rebuttle to this post of mine?

There is literally no passage of scripture that I have read that states Jesus will reign on the earth for 1000 years. I have already explained the misunderstanding of Revelation 20, where the faithful saints are promised to reign with Christ for 1000 years. Jesus reigns in Heaven.

Peace to you

And you still haven't given a rebuttle to my argumentation regarding this.

Here is one post of mine.

I'm curious as to your response to Beale's paragraph I quoted in that post.

 

[Jope]

So, you understand what the passage says, but dismiss it based on your interpretation of other passages?

Jumping to conclusions now I see.

"Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true." - J. Caesar

I'm probably going to be leaving this convo soon. You are not committed to rational exegesis that is free from presuppositions.

"I have grounded my preaching upon the literal word; he that pleases may follow me; he that will not may stay." - Martin Luther, Table Talks

Do you not seek to reconcile the passages that are contrary to your belief system?

Peace to you

Ever heard of psychological projection?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You're mixing up terms. I have repeatedly stated the Jews, the Gentiles and the Church are separate. I have also stated numerous times that those members of the Church, forsake their former Jewish or Gentile heritage. When Paul states there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Church, he is talking about the Church, which is separate from Jew and Gentile who do not believe on Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

You have indeed stated these things numerous times. As a newcomer to this thread I have no doubt as to what you believe, but you have not persuaded me that what you believe is correct.
I can accept that the Jews and the Gentiles were separate, and that there was enmity between them, but the Lord Jesus has abolished the enmity through His death on the cross and has made 'one new man from the two, thus making peace.' (Ephesians 2:15. I think all the verses from v.11 v.22 are part of this same argument). This is in line with what Our Lord says in John 10:16. "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice, and there will be one flock and one Shepherd." There is only one flock, only one people of God - believing Jew and believing Gentile - one people together in Christ. This is not 'replacement theology' as some characterize it; it is Inclusion Theology, 'where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all' (Colossians 2:11).

 

[Jope]

I disagree.

Give a rebuttle then.

You still haven't answered one of my four questions I asked in this previous post in this thread.

You still haven't given a rebutte regarding Paul's description of Israel I stated in this post in this thread.

And yet another post of mine in this thread that shows your beliefs about the Church and Israel and the Jews and Gentiles to be incongruent with scripture, un-rebutted.

 

[Jope]

You have indeed stated these things numerous times. As a newcomer to this thread I have no doubt as to what you believe, but you have not persuaded me that what you believe is correct.
I can accept that the Jews and the Gentiles were separate, and that there was enmity between them, but the Lord Jesus has abolished the enmity through His death on the cross and has made 'one new man from the two, thus making peace.' (Ephesians 2:15. I think all the verses from v.11 v.22 are part of this same argument). This is in line with what Our Lord says in John 10:16. "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice, and there will be one flock and one Shepherd." There is only one flock, only one people of God - believing Jew and believing Gentile - one people together in Christ. This is not 'replacement theology' as some characterize it; it is Inclusion Theology, 'where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all' (Colossians 2:11).

Here is a post for you then. By the way, is this normally how you (and @canadyjd ) have conversations with people off the web? Unable to follow the convo coherently, ignoring what was said and introducing rabbit trail nonsense and/or repeating arguments that have already been addressed, and failing to address the response and just spamming your statements? Curious.

 

[Jope]

I guess I forgot that I'm speaking to people that spiritualize plain meaning of sentences and words into a foreign meaning unintended by the author, so that 2 plus 2 equals 1000, since 1000 is just a figure of speech for a really big number. And since the interpretation of the text is subjective, I can make the number 4 mean 1000, since they are both really big numbers to me.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here is a post for you then. By the way, is this normally how you (and @canadyjd ) have conversations with people off the web? Unable to follow the convo coherently, ignoring what was said and introducing rabbit trail nonsense and/or repeating arguments that have already been addressed, and failing to address the response and just spamming your statements? Curious.

Your link doesn't appear to work. If you will kindly give me the post number, I will gladly respond.

 

[Jope]

Your link doesn't appear to work. If you will kindly give me the post number, I will gladly respond.

I spiritualized your post into nothingness, unfortunately.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I guess I forgot that I'm speaking to people that spiritualize plain meaning of sentences and words into a foreign meaning unintended by the author, so that 2 plus 2 equals 1000, since 1000 is just a figure of speech for a really big number. And since the interpretation of the text is subjective, I can make the number 4 mean 1000, since they are both really big numbers to me.

John 6:60. 'Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it."' Perhaps your first language is not English? Would it help if I wrote it in French? Or perhaps I should follow your example and repeat myself over and over again. Would that help?

I spiritualized your post into nothingness, unfortunately.

So you don't actually have a post that you want me to reply to. Thanks for being honest. I deduce from this that you don't want your statements questioned. It makes me wonder why you joined a discussion forum.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Jope,
Perhaps I may ask you one question. A quick flick through the thread did not show me where you answered this before.
If 'Israel' in Romans 9-11 always means physical Jews, how do you interpret Romans 11:26. 'And so all Israel will be saved.'
Does it mean all Israelites who ever lived? Does it mean all Israelites alive in Paul's day? Does it mean all Jews left alive at the return of Christ? Does it mean Jews who become Christians? Does it mean Romans 2:28-29 Jews, or what?

 

[Jope]

John 6:60. 'Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can understand it."' Perhaps your first language is not English?

Question: since, according to covenantal amillennialists, God has forsaken the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants upon which the earthly kingdom is based, and He was just using figures of speech when He swore an oath regarding these covenants and repeated them often in Scriptures, how will God treat the covenant regarding the Church? Will he likewise state in the future, that He was just using figures of speech and the promises are foolish to believe?

Would it help if I wrote it in French? Or perhaps I should follow your example and repeat myself over and over again. Would that help?

Give evidence that I have misunderstood your view.

So you don't actually have a post that you want me to reply to.

So you are delusional. Thanks for proving my response correct.

Thanks for being honest.

Ironically, you are able to realize I am not being intentionally deceptive, unlike you and canadayjd.

I deduce from this that you don't want your statements questioned. It makes me wonder why you joined a discussion forum.

Oh, so you are that unlearned and clueless about the topic that you are unable to realize sarcasm. That's fine if you don't want to have a discussion/debate with me. It sounds like it's going to be a waste of time engaging your posts.

 

[Jope]

@Jope,
Perhaps I may ask you one question. A quick flick through the thread did not show me where you answered this before.
If 'Israel' in Romans 9-11 always means physical Jews, how do you interpret Romans 11:26. 'And so all Israel will be saved.'

Just like I said before, it's going to be a waste of time engaging your posts. Do you know what a straw man fallacy is?

Does it mean all Israelites who ever lived? Does it mean all Israelites alive in Paul's day? Does it mean all Jews left alive at the return of Christ? Does it mean Jews who become Christians? Does it mean Romans 2:28-29 Jews, or what?

Take another look through the thread. I have answered these questions. Please learn how to have a conversation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin Marprelate said:
@Jope,
Perhaps I may ask you one question. A quick flick through the thread did not show me where you answered this before.
If 'Israel' in Romans 9-11 always means physical Jews, how do you interpret Romans 11:26. 'And so all Israel will be saved.'

Just like I said before, it's going to be a waste of time engaging your posts. Do you know what a straw man fallacy is?

I do, and I'm interested to know what you think 'and so all Israel will be saved' means. That is a question, not a straw man fallacy.
I have looked through the thread again, and I can't see where you answered this simple question, so please do so now.
In return, I will answer the question you asked in your post #54. Is that a deal?

 

[Jope]

Martin Marprelate said:
@Jope,
Perhaps I may ask you one question. A quick flick through the thread did not show me where you answered this before.

Consider your post as unimportant as my post where I addressed this then.

"A quick reading of your post did not show me anything of substance, so, subjectively, I consider your post to mean absolutely nothing." And I didn't bother reading the rest of your post after this statement, since we're doing "quick flicks."

If 'Israel' in Romans 9-11 always means physical Jews, how do you interpret Romans 11:26. 'And so all Israel will be saved.'

I do, and I'm interested to know what you think 'and so all Israel will be saved' means. That is a question, not a straw man fallacy.
I have looked through the thread again, and I can't see where you answered this simple question, so please do so now.
In return, I will answer the question you asked in your post #54. Is that a deal?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Question: since, according to covenantal amillennialists, God has forsaken the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants upon which the earthly kingdom is based, and He was just using figures of speech when He swore an oath regarding these covenants and repeated them often in Scriptures, how will God treat the covenant regarding the Church? Will he likewise state in the future, that He was just using figures of speech and the promises are foolish to believe?

First of all, covenantal amillennialists do not believe that God has forsaken the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. I wrote a long screed on the Abrahamic covenant on this board; perhaps you did not see it.

The covenant promises to Abraham were of land, nation and seed. Each of these has both an earthly and a heavenly fulfilment. There is an earthly land of Canaan which the Israelites eventually came to inherit, but we are told in Romans 4:13 that the promise was for the whole world (cf. Matt 5:5; Rev 5:10), and in Hebrews 11:16 that Abraham looked forward to a heavenly city. These are fundamentally the same promise and refer to the new heavens and new earth and also to the heavenly Jerusalem of Rev 21;1-3 which Abraham will inherit along with all believers at the end of time. Likewise, there was an earthly nation descended from Abraham who came to live in Canaan, but we learn from Galatians 3:7 that believers of all nations are his true descendants and it is they who will inherit the heavenly promises.

This brings us nicely on to the two seeds of Abraham; for there are two seeds with two different promises. Firstly, there is a physical seed to whom are given physical promises- a great nation and a physical land for it to dwell in. These promises were received by Israel in full (Josh 21:43-45). This seed ‘after the flesh’ (Gal 4:29) is represented by Ishmael. It is most important to understand that Ishmael is not in the Covenant. ‘And Abraham said to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!” Then God said, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him”’ (Gen 17:18-19). Nothing could be clearer than this; Ishmael is not in the covenant, although he receives the covenant sign (v26). Ishmael, though not an Israelite, is a type of Israel after the flesh. He receives the earthly promises (Genesis 17:20) and the outward sign, but not the spiritual blessings (Gal 4:30; Acts 7:51-53). He persecutes the True Seed (Gen 21:9; John 8:37ff; Gal 4:29). His circumcision is of no avail to him since he lacks what circumcision symbolized; a humble, circumcised heart (Jeremiah 9:25-26).

There is also a spiritual seed of Abraham; those who are in Christ, the True Seed, by faith. These are they who are looking for a heavenly country just as Abraham was. Just as Abraham did not receive an earthly inheritance in his lifetime (Acts 7:5 etc), so the true Israelite knew that Canaan was not his true home (Psalms 119:19. cf. 1Peter 2:11). He put no confidence in his circumcision, but rather his circumcision spoke to him of the promised Seed of Abraham who should come (cf. Simeon: Luke 2:25-32; Phil 3:3). Isaac is not Christ, but he is a type or foreshadowing of Christ: long promised, born miraculously, persecuted by his own kin (Ishmael), offered up by his father, who received him (figuratively- Hebrews 11:19) back from the dead. The children of God come from him (Romans 9:7; Hebrews 3:5b).

Next we can look at the ‘promises:’ ‘Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ……..and if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’ (Gal 3:16, 29). The spiritual promises of the Abrahamic Covenant never applied to those who were physical descendants of Abraham, but to those of all nations (including Israel, of course) who are in Christ by faith. Very solemn are the words of our Lord on this matter: “And I say to you that many will come from east and west and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12).

Again, this is not 'replacement theology' but Inclusion Theology: 'That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the Gospel.'

 

[Jope]

First of all, covenantal amillennialists do not believe that God has forsaken the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. I wrote a long screed on the Abrahamic covenant on this board; perhaps you did not see it.

Not a single reference to a Covenant Amillennialist. Ever heard of Oswald Allis? He is a Covenant Amillennialist who believes the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are cancelled. Read his book, Prophecy and the Church.

Don't you find it odd that your opponent has to instruct you on what your view is?

The covenant promises to Abraham were of land, nation and seed. Each of these has both an earthly and a heavenly fulfilment. There is an earthly land of Canaan which the Israelites eventually came to inherit, but we are told in Romans 4:13 that the promise was for the whole world (cf. Matt 5:5; Rev 5:10), and in Hebrews 11:16 that Abraham looked forward to a heavenly city. These are fundamentally the same promise and refer to the new heavens and new earth and also to the heavenly Jerusalem of Rev 21;1-3 which Abraham will inherit along with all believers at the end of time. Likewise, there was an earthly nation descended from Abraham who came to live in Canaan, but we learn from Galatians 3:7 that believers of all nations are his true descendants and it is they who will inherit the heavenly promises.

This brings us nicely on to the two seeds of Abraham; for there are two seeds with two different promises. Firstly, there is a physical seed to whom are given physical promises- a great nation and a physical land for it to dwell in. These promises were received by Israel in full (Josh 21:43-45). This seed ‘after the flesh’ (Gal 4:29) is represented by Ishmael. It is most important to understand that Ishmael is not in the Covenant. ‘And Abraham said to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!” Then God said, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him”’ (Gen 17:18-19). Nothing could be clearer than this; Ishmael is not in the covenant, although he receives the covenant sign (v26). Ishmael, though not an Israelite, is a type of Israel after the flesh. He receives the earthly promises (Genesis 17:20) and the outward sign, but not the spiritual blessings (Gal 4:30; Acts 7:51-53). He persecutes the True Seed (Gen 21:9; John 8:37ff; Gal 4:29). His circumcision is of no avail to him since he lacks what circumcision symbolized; a humble, circumcised heart (Jeremiah 9:25-26).

There is also a spiritual seed of Abraham; those who are in Christ, the True Seed, by faith. These are they who are looking for a heavenly country just as Abraham was. Just as Abraham did not receive an earthly inheritance in his lifetime (Acts 7:5 etc), so the true Israelite knew that Canaan was not his true home (Psalms 119:19. cf. 1Peter 2:11). He put no confidence in his circumcision, but rather his circumcision spoke to him of the promised Seed of Abraham who should come (cf. Simeon: Luke 2:25-32; Phil 3:3). Isaac is not Christ, but he is a type or foreshadowing of Christ: long promised, born miraculously, persecuted by his own kin (Ishmael), offered up by his father, who received him (figuratively- Hebrews 11:19) back from the dead. The children of God come from him (Romans 9:7; Hebrews 3:5b).

Next we can look at the ‘promises:’ ‘Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ……..and if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’ (Gal 3:16, 29). The spiritual promises of the Abrahamic Covenant never applied to those who were physical descendants of Abraham, but to those of all nations (including Israel, of course) who are in Christ by faith. Very solemn are the words of our Lord on this matter: “And I say to you that many will come from east and west and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12).

Again, this is not 'replacement theology' but Inclusion Theology: 'That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the Gospel.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Not a single reference to a Covenant Amillennialist. Ever heard of Oswald Allis? He is a Covenant Amillennialist who believes the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are cancelled. Read his book, Prophecy and the Church.

Don't you find it odd that your opponent has to instruct you on what your view is?

I never heard of Oswald Allis in my life. If he does not believe in the continuity of the covenants (except for the Sinaitic Covenant - Heb 8:13), I would say that he is not a covenant theologian of any sort. Why would I want to read his book?
But isn't it great that we agree about something? We both disagree with Oswald Allis.
Have you quoted from a pile of dispensational theologians? I hadn't noticed. Surely we are supposed to voice our own views on a discussion board? Do you really want a list of all the theologians I have read? What would that prove? But if you want a few covenant guys who believe in the continuity of the covenants, start with Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen in the 17th Century all the way through to A.W. Pink in the 20th.
All the early Particular Baptists believed in covenant theology, and all that I've read believed in its continuity.